this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024
244 points (98.8% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5222 readers
843 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Bronzefish@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

We stil "could" limit the damage. We won't.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 36 points 5 days ago (3 children)

IPCC declared 1.5C wasn't feasible a few years ago. I don't recall the year, but it's the same report when they said that the limit would be broken, but we'd find a way to pull it back down eventually with future tech. Or as some call it, "magic".

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 23 points 5 days ago

It's just copium. "But we can still..." i.e. things that won't happen anyway because they already did not happen before and are for sure going the reverse way under Trump. The few people who claim to care need to stop making themselves hopeful and happy with delusions, it's not going to help. We'd need severe extreme measures now, things the general public would not want. That's just the unfortunate truth of it, but one that people have to realize. Just like how people need to realize how many people want far right fascists like Trump, or the garbage parties in Europe. Things will get much worse now.

[–] answersplease77@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

"BuT AI aNd QuAnTuM cOmPuTeRs WiLl SoLvE cLiMaTe ChAnGe." as if AI is going to magically convince governments profitting trillions of dollars to stop the oil industries.

[–] Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 4 days ago

It's the same problem as "minimum wage" in the US; The goalpost moves further away as nothing is accomplished.

[–] toomanypancakes@lemmy.world 35 points 5 days ago

spoilerWe won't limit the damage.

[–] Letstakealook@lemm.ee 24 points 4 days ago (1 children)

So...uh...is everyone ready to join those of us slandered as "doomers" in reality now? Nothing of significance has been done or is being done, and this problem is not going away. It is only going to get worse. Unless everyone joins us in reality, it is over. I'm not exactly hopeful, as the "I hate all science" party just swept both houses, along with the presidency and they already had the courts.

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 12 points 4 days ago (3 children)

The EU had an 8% decline in emissions last year. That is roughly in line with meeting the 1.5C target and mainly done using reasonable policy.

China also invests a lot in Green technology. With the trade war, it is certainly possible that the Chinese economy crashes, which would mean lower energy consumption growth and hence lower Chinese emissions.

There also is a strong chance that Trump launches a massive war in the Middle East. He loves Israel and bombing Arabs. If that includes attacks on oil and gas infrastructure, that could be great for the climate(although horrible on so many other levels).

[–] Letstakealook@lemm.ee 7 points 4 days ago

Valid, though in some cases dark, points. The US is one of, if not the largest, per capita emitters on the planet, though. Our military alone is a top emitter. I just find the outlook for meaningful change in this country grim and the effects we've already begone to see from climate change are pretty severe.

[–] Aksamit@slrpnk.net 3 points 4 days ago

The unbelievably massive amounts of heat, pollution and environmental destruction from war is not currently 'great for the climate'. Ww3 and bombing oil and gas infrastructures is not going to change that.

[–] booly@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago

The EU had an 8% decline in emissions last year.

The US peaked at 23.1 tonnes of carbon emissions per capita in 1973. It came off that peak but stayed pretty flat through 2007 or so, at 20.2 tonnes per person. Since then, it's steadily come down, and is now at about 14.9.

There's still a long way to go, but the 35% reduction that the US has already accomplished shows that it's possible to keep making progress.

[–] answersplease77@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

And in 2025 we will continue to pump and invest hundrends of billions of dollars into fossil and oil industries and states ... fucking clown governments

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 4 days ago (2 children)

"ok.. we broke yet another goal we set for ourselves. But we can still limit damage!!"

How many times does this have to repeat before we can't limit the damage anymore

[–] CitizenKong@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Well, we can always limit the damage because the damage only goes up if we don't.

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Aure, but I get tired of the rhetoric, like there's never any actual consequences for breaking the limits. The people responsible just keep on chugging along

[–] CitizenKong@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Totally with you.

[–] yessikg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 4 days ago

When the damage is bad enough to kill us all

[–] SpiceDealer@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

Sure, we can still limit the damage... if we "get rid" of Trump.

[–] bestboyfriendintheworld@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Large scale geo-engineering here we come.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago

We already did that (large-scale fossil fuel mining) and it's what got us into this mess in the first place. There's a saying that goes "when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you do is top digging." You cannot fix a problem and continue actively making it worse at the same time. It just doesn't fucking work.

In other words, there is no "geoengineering" that will make any damn sense what-so-fucking-ever until we literally stop digging!